IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26698 of 2007(C)
1. STOY T. MUTTATH,S/O. M.P.THARU, AGED 39
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26698/2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner joined as LPSA in an aided school on
1.6.1988. He was promoted as Headmaster with effect from
1.4.1990. the school was closed in March, 2002 and Ext.P2
is the order of the Deputy Director ordering closure.
Thereafter by Ext.P3 order issued on 3.4.2002 as per which
the petitioner was deployed to the Corporation L.P. School,
Puthurkara, Trissur, at the request of the Secretary of the
Corporation, on a work arrangement basis.
2. Subsequently, by Ext.P5 order dated 18.6.2002, the
petitioner was transferred and deployed as LPSA. This order
was appealed against by filing Ext.P11 before the first
respondent mainly relying on Exts.P6 to P10 orders where
Headmasters were deployed without upsetting their status.
That appeal was rejected by Ext.P13. Ext.P13 was
WP(c).No.26698/07 2
challenged before this court and this court by Ext.P14,
judgment in O.P.No.9478/2003 quashed Ext.P13 and
directed reconsideration of the matter in the light of Exts.P6
to P10 referred above.
3. Petitioner took up the matter with the Government
and eventually Ext.P15 notice of hearing was issued and he
was heard by the Deputy Secretary to Government in the
General Education Department. However, Ext.P11 appeal
was disposed of by Ext.P17 order, passed by the Secretary
to Government and it is challenging Ext.P17, the writ
petition is filed.
4. The counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that
though he is liable to be deployed on the closure of the
school, in terms of the Government Orders, which were in
force at the relevant time, he is eligible to be deployed as a
Headmaster and not as a LPSA as has been done by Ext.P5.
On the other hand, the Government Pleader submits that
the deployment on protection given to the petitioner can
WP(c).No.26698/07 3
only be as the junior most teacher and that if he was
deployed as a Headmaster, that will to the detriment of the
entire teachers. She is also relying on Exts.P2(b) and R4(a)
order in this behalf.
As already noticed, by Ext.P14 judgment, Ext.P13 was
set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered. It
was in pursuance to the judgment the petitioner filed
Ext.P14(a) representation to the Government.
A reading of Ext.P14 and also Ext.P14(a) representation shows that the petitioner was heavily
relying on Exts.P6 to P10, where according to the petitioner
in similar circumstances, Headmasters have been deployed
as Headmasters itself. However, this aspect of the matter
has not been dealt with in Ext.P17 order and this is evident
from the order itself. That apart, Ext.P17 order is vitiated for
the further reason that the order in question has been
passed by the Secretary to Government, whereas the
petitioner was heard in pursuance to Ext.P15 notice, by the
WP(c).No.26698/07 4
Deputy Secretary of the General Education Department. It
has been repeatedly held by this court that, if a statutory
authority is disposing of the matter, the statutory authority
itself shall hear the matter and if hearing has been
conducted by anybody else, as in this case, it will be
violative of the principles of natural justice. Reference is
made to the decisions reported in 1999(3)KLT,275, 1996(1)
KLT 133, 1994(1) KLT 790 and 1994(2) KLT 238.
For the aforesaid two reasons, without examining the
merits of the contentions of both sides, I am inclined to set
aside Ext.P17 and direct that the matter shall be
reconsidered.
Accordingly, Ext.P17 will stand set aside and the first
respondent shall hear the petitioner and dispose of Ext.P11
appeal afresh. This shall be done as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of
production of a copy of the judgment.
WP(c).No.26698/07 5
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.26698/07 6